CRJA/19/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2773 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                         COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  CRJA No.19 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate with Mr. Asif Ali, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.

2. Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2023)

3. This is a jail appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 04/05.11.2022, passed by Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:- S. Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in-

                                   No.                                                lieu of fine
                                   1.    302/34       Life             Rs.20,000/-    One       year
                                         IPC          imprisonment                    additional
                                                                                      S.I.
                                   2.    201/34       Three   years    Rs.5,000/-     Three
                                         IPC          R.I.                            months
                                                                                      additional
                                                                                      S.I.


                                  4.     Both     the sentences were directed to run

concurrently and the period spent by the appellant in prison shall be directed to bet set-off as per law.

5. Today, learned counsel for the appellant press the bail application of the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution is allegedly based on circumstantial evidence, which according to him, has not been proved at all what to say of completion of the chain of circumstance against the appellant-accused. It is

further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased-Shakeel Ahmed went missing from his house on 07.12.2020 at around 03:00 P.M. and a missing report was lodged by his wife-Smt. Shameena on 09.12.2020. During investigation suspicion was expressed upon the appellant and he was arrested on 11.12.2020 by the Police and on his pointing out a cheque was recovered from the house of the appellant, which allegedly was given to the appellant by the deceased, amounting to ₹5,00,000/- dated 03.12.2020.

7. It is case of the prosecution that the deceased want to get the cheque back from the appellant, but he was not returning it to the deceased and only for that reason the crime was committed by the appellant. Another circumstance as per the prosecution, was the recovery of the motorcycle of the deceased, at the pointing out of the appellant.

8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the cheque was given on 03.12.2020, but the same was never presented before the bank for encashment and such a weak motive is not enough to implicate the appellant in the crime. Apart from this, there is nothing on record to link the appellant with the crime.

9. It is again submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is under incarceration since the date of his arrest i.e., 11.12.2020 and the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, since the chain of circumstance is not complete at all.

10. Per contra, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that the

recoveries were made at the pointing out of the appellant and for that reason, he was linked with the crime and was finally convicted by the learned Sessions Judge.

11. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the record of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal.

12. Accordingly bail application of the appellant is hereby allowed.

13. Let the appellant/applicant namely Aasif be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

14. List this appeal for final hearing, in due course.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.09.2023 SK